Four of eight jurors: Williams posed no threat

CASEY MCNERTHNE, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

By CASEY MCNERTHNEY, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Seattle Police officer Ian Birk, center, walks into the courtroom with his wife Camille on Thursday at the King County Courthouse in Seattle. See photos and evidence from the inquest.
Photo: Joshua Trujillo/seattlepi.com

Related Stories

A King County jury split over Thursday on whether woodcarver John T. Williams posed a threat to the Seattle police officer who shot and killed him in August at a downtown street corner.

Returning a mixed decision Thursday afternoon, only one juror found that Williams actually posed a threat during the Aug. 30 confrontation with Officer Ian Birk. The 27-year-old Seattle officer stopped Williams on the street and shot him moments after telling him to drop a folding knife.

Four jurors found Williams did not pose a threat to Birk, and three said they couldn't make a determination.

Answering 13 questions as part of a proceeding that carries no legal weight, the eight-member inquest jury also remained divided on the question of Birk's perceptions at the time of the shooting.

Asked whether Birk believed Williams presented an "imminent threat of serious physical harm," four jurors found that Birk saw Williams as a threat. Four said it remained unclear whether the officer believed Williams was a threat to him.

Birk's daylight shooting of Williams sparked controversy and demands by the homeless carver's supporters that prosecutors charge the officer with murder in the Aug. 30 shooting. The King County Prosecutor's Office will now conduct an independent review of the shooting before Prosecutor Dan Satterberg decides whether to file charges.

The slaying was the most publicized of a series of violent interactions between Seattle police and citizens that has prompted the ACLU to call for a federal investigation of the department.

Since the inquest began Jan. 10, witnesses to the shooting testified that Williams, a heavy drinker with mental health problems, wasn't threatening the officer and that Birk may have fired in haste. Birk, however, maintained that he feared for his life and had to shoot Williams.

The inquest is not a criminal proceeding. The eight jurors were asked to find whether the shooting was justified, but their finding will have no immediate impact.

Among their other findings, none of the jurors thought Williams knife was open when Birk fired; four said no and four said they didn't know.

A majority of jurors also decided that Williams was not partially turned towards Birk when the officer opened fire. Five said he wasn't turned toward the officer, two said he was and one didn't know.

Four jurors also said Williams didn't have enough time to put the knife down. One said he did, and three said they didn't know.

Satterberg, the county's elected prosecutor, will decide by mid-February whether to charge Birk, according to a statement from his office.

"With the inquest now completed, the King County Prosecutor's Office will conduct an independent review of the evidence brought forth during the inquest and will consider the findings of the jury to determine whether or not criminal charges are warranted," a spokesman for the office said in a statement.

Several witnesses testified that Williams wasn't threatening Birk, and some said they thought Birk acted more aggressively than they would have expected in that situation.

During the inquest, the Williams' family attorney, Tim Ford, continually pointed out that no witnesses reported seeing Williams threaten or attack anyone on Aug. 30. Birk's attorney, Ted Buck, countered that no witness had a clear view or recollection of everything that happened.

Nancy Bushman, who was near Boren Avenue and Howell Street on the day of the shooting, testified that Williams didn't appear aggressive.

"He seemed very well-behaved and like a normal pedestrian, just walking as I was," Bushman said during the fifth day of testimony. "So I didn't hardly have any reason to look any more carefully."

Barbara Newman, who saw the incident from her car going southbound on Howell Street, testified Thursday that Birk raised his gun before Williams turned, and said she didn't witness aggressive behavior.

Newman also said she never saw Williams turn to face Birk and never saw him take a step toward the officer. Birk testified that Williams glanced back once, then turned with an aggressive posture that he believed indicated that he was going to attack.

Being questioned by Buck, Newman acknowledged she was moving her attention from the officer to Williams during the incident, and said it was possible she could have not seen the actions of one man while looking at the other.

Buck, trying to question the accuracy of witness accounts, pointed out that no witnesses clearly saw a knife in Williams' hand. He also pointed out that some witnesses didn't hear Birk yell, which is audible on the footage from Birk's patrol car video.

Testifying during the inquest, Birk said John Williams didn't look confused, didn't put his hands up and didn't show any sign he would comply the officer's order to drop the knife. The officer told the court he didn't think Williams' initial look back was a sign of compliance, and that it would have been a stretch for Williams to place the knife on a nearby wall. He said he was left with no other reasonable alternative but to shoot Williams.

"I utilized all the time I felt that I had," said Birk, 27. "But the situation escalated certainly more quickly than I could have known or predicted."

Ford questioned why the knife was found closed on the ground. "It did surprise me that the knife was closed, having just seen Mr. Williams holding a knife open in his hand," Birk said Wednesday. "I have no idea how that knife was closed, if that was the knife I saw initially or not."

Last week, Detective Jeffrey Mudd said a second knife fell from Williams' right jacket pocket when investigators were looking for his identification. Mudd said that knife also was found closed.